a little help?


#1

ok so im having a debate with an athesit he is just qouting stuff from dawkins book which of course i havnt read so a little help in answering this piece he put to me would be helpful!

One of the questions many theists ask when an argument is put forth for why God almost certainly doesn’t exist is, “Well, if God doesn’t exist then where did matter come from?” Chuculainn, I’ve seen you ask this question more then once. This is the first-cause argument. Now even if there wasn’t an answer to this question it still doesn’t even remotely suggest God exists, or that He is responsible for creation. Postulating God as the explanation for the creation of the universe explains nothing because you’re left with answering the even bigger question of what created God. God does not explain anything because it regress the problem, infinitively so. If you argue that something complicated like a Universe or life needs something even more complicated to bring it into existence then your argument holds that God’s existence can only be explained by something even more complicated then he bringing him into existence. And then that more complicated God who created your God would have to be explained by an even more complicated God and that one would have to be…and you see where I’m going. By using God as an explanation for creation you get this infinite regress of ever more complicated God’s creating lesser god’s for all time before time even began, which of course makes no sense whatsoever. Then you hear the argument that God was never created, that he exists outside of time. Putting aside the fact that this makes no sense at all, since time is a measure of things, if God exists outside of it he becomes 100% impotent and unable to do anything at all let alone create a universe or answer prayers or grant everlasting life.

Still rational, logical arguments like that never seem to silence theists and they cling tight to God’s final gap to hide in. Turns out now that that gap is gone, well it has been for a while but I only recently came across a physicist by the name of Victor J. Stenger who has written a book called God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. In it, although I haven’t read it yet but I have listened to an interview with him where he explains this in detail, is how the universe never needed a first cause, that it is exactly the way you would expect it to be if there was no creator.

His argument basically goes like this: We used to believe that matter could neither be created nor destroyed (the law of the conservation of matter) until Einstein came along and showed matter can be created and destroyed by energy but that didn’t really settle the theistic argument because you could simply say, “Well where did the energy come from, because you need the energy to create the matter?” (The law of conservation of energy). Well it turns out that modern cosmology has discovered that the total energy of the universe is ZERO! There are two types of energy, positive (which is needed for the creation of matter) and negative (which is associated with gravity), and cosmologists have measured, extremely accurately, that there is an exact balance between the positive and negative energy. Therefore you needed no energy whatsoever to create the matter that was necessary for the creation of the universe which beautifully gets rid of the argument that you needed a God (or anything) to create matter, to create the universe. This is explains where matter comes from, and scientifically proves God is not only not necessary or responsible for the creation of the universe, nothing is.

Then the question gets asked about where did these laws of physics come from, surely you need some sort of lawgiver. And this has a related question of how something can come from nothing. Firstly, to any theists out there that same question must be applied to God, if you still believe in him, and it’s a damn sight more difficult to explain how something so complicated as a lawgiver could arise out of nothing then the actual laws themselves. It turns out it’s a non-question.

"

anyone help me with this???


#2

Again this goes back to Einstein (and Copernicus, Gallileo and Newton) and what he discovered, and what we’ve come to understand as physics has moved on, is that what we call the laws of physics are not some commandments handed down to us from above that control the behaviour of matter. What they are are mathematical rules and models that physicists invented to describe the way the universe simply is. We know for certain that the laws of physics did not come from any external source, and that the universe looks exactly the way you would expect it to if it came from nothing. The laws look exactly the way they look if there is no lawgiver.

This really is God’s last refuge being overrun being scientific understanding and the last refuge of an argument for just why God might exist gone. As Richard Dawkins wrote about this book: "Darwin chased God out of his old haunts in biology, and he scurried for safety down the rabbit hole of physics. The laws and constants of the universe, we were told, are too good to be true: a set-up, carefully tuned to allow the eventual evolution of life. It needed a good physicist to show us the fallacy, and Victor Stenger lucidly does so. The faithful won’t change their minds, of course (that is what faith means) but Victor Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole and God is running out of refuges in which to hide. I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book.

quite ling i know but some please help me with it!


#3

I just read that, and I am amazed at the utter depths of ludiocrity that it contains. I honestly do not know where to begin or even how to deal with these things.

First, science can not disprove God. The vast, vast majority of scientists in the world are rather quick to point this out. Science can neither prove nor disprove Him. Anyone who appeals to science and says it disproves God is in complete disagreement with the very people to whom he is appealing. In fact, most scientists will insist that they cannot prove anything at all, they can at most provide models that seem to explain how things work or what will happen when certain factors are present. This is why the highest level of scientific certainity is a theory, rather than a proof. Proofs fall into the realm of logic, not science, and proofs are based upon abstract ideas that may or may not even represent anything that really exists. Science does not claim to prove anything, leaving that to the realm of philosophy (wherein one finds the field of logic).

God is, by definition, something outside of nature. These fellows may not like this definition and say it doesn’t make sense, but that is irrelevant. That is the definition of God. The reason they don’t like it is because they know that it really does put Him outside of the realm of science. In fact, there are lots of things that atheists readily accept as true which science cannot attest to, such as consciousness. Everything we know about neurological science tells us that consciousness should not be possible, and yet we are conscious. Or are we? Is there even such a thing as consciousness, or is that merely what the various biological actions in our brains cause us to believe. Even in speaking about belief, I am referring to a part of consciousness, which we cannot even prove exists without proving belief exists which we cannot prove exists apart from consciousness and it is one giant repeating circle.

The fellow explained why we can’t ask what created God perfectly - God is by definition uncreated. Or, to put it in an even better way, take whatever is not created - that is what we give the name God to. The reason that they object to this definition is because they don’t like it. In fact, what was very amusing is how he said that this is illogical. It is COMPLETELY logical. Logically, it makes perfect and complete sense. All logic does is to take a series of premises, any premises you want, and determine what is true given that. It cannot itself disprove any one of the premises. For example, take the following argument:

  1. All men are immortal
  2. Socrates is a man
  3. Therefore, Socrates is immortal.

Logically, that is completely accurate. It is a perfectly valid argument. You might question, obviously, whether or not the first premise is true. That is fine - but logic cannot prove or disprove that premise - that’s the point. This is a perfectly valid argument:

  1. God is uncreated
  2. All Uncreated things do not require a creator
  3. Therefore, God did not require a creator

This argument is spotless/I logically speaking. These folks may disagree with premise 1, but they cannot prove or disprove it with logic. Therefore, for them to say that the idea that God is by definition uncreated is illogical shows that they either have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, or they are being, whether intentionally or not, dishonest.


#4

u are now my good friend lol! iv been arguing with these people allt he time but they seem to have no knowledge of these thigns that me! i decided baptism of fire was best in getting used to these things. ill send them thias! hope u dnt mind if i copyright lol and then see there reply! and go back again!

if anyone would like too add on to this be my guest! time people really fought back against atheism!!


#5

Moving on, the assertion that because the total value of energy in the world is 0 indicates that God does is not necessary is utter absurdity. They are playing with definitions and techincalities without addressing the real point.

Their argument basically goes like this:

  1. If there is energy in the universe, then a Creator was necessary.
  2. But there is a value of zero total energy in the universe.
  3. Therefore, no Creator is necessary.

The problem with this is that they are combining two different ideas altogether. The total *value *of energy in the universe may be zero, but this does not detract from the fact that energy exists. They are taking the mathematical sum of the values of energy and equating it with the existance of energy. This is literally comparing apples to oranges. They are two different things altogether.

For something to have any value, it must exist. We can differentiate between 5 volts and 10 volts because electricity exists. Volts are just a measurment that we use to speak about how much potential energy is present in a particular electrical situatiion. That doesn’t change the fact that electricity exists.

To understand this better, lets look at a parcitular way in which energy is expressed: sound. Energy is expressed in sound waves. Now sound waves can be opposite each other, and cancel out, as you may know. If I have two sound waves that are opposite, they will cancel each other out and there will be no sound, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the two sound waves exist.

There is negative energy in the universe, and positive. All it means to say that there is zero total value is to say that there is just as much positive energy as negative energy so the total equals zero. There is still positive and negative energy in the world.

Let’s look at this an even better way. We measure energy in joules, scientifically speaking. What this person is saying is that there are just as many joules positive as joules negative. But how can we measure something that doesn’t exist?! We can’t, and that is the point.

Their ultimate argument is that we can’t measure God scientifically, so He must not exist. But we can meaure energy scientifically - that’s how we know that the total value is zero, and that’s why we can even have a measurement - joules - to measure it in at all!

I really hope someone can explain this better. I’m not doing so well because there arguments are honestly so ridiculous its hard to counter them in normal words.


#6

lol believe me i feel ur pain! he onced asked me why catholics believed in marys assesion when its no mentioned in the bible! when i named all the books it was writtian in outside and inside the bible he said they had nothing to do with it!!

thanks for the help! ill be back with more stupid replys!


#7

so after i pushed them abit futhur with your help! they started on us having faith, i argued that thye have faith that god doesnt exist they reply

You live on faith because there is only a very small chance that there is a god, so you have to tell yourself you have faith and just hope you are right. We don’t care. There is nothing to prove to us that there is such thing as a god, so unless we see some evidence then we just live on happily with it. If there was evidence we’d believe it, but you see things like people bleeding from their hands or statues apparently crying and take it as some sort of miraculous sign to base your life upon

anyone want to give a better reply than the ones i can give?


#8

ok the reply!! do u want to take another shot him? your post is in red and his in blue!m please find away of shuting him up!

WOW, I take it whoever wrote this is seriously tired out from the amount of mental aerobics going on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
First, science can not disprove God!

Where did I say it did? How many times have I written this? Of course science can’t disprove God’s existence, you can’t prove the non-existence of anything. Think about it. What science can do is show that there is absolutely no evidence for God (and there would be if one existed) and that God is not necessary for the creation of energy, thus matter, thus the universe and thus life. We can’t prove he doesn’t exist but we can show that not only is the probability of his existence way beyond the realm of possibility but he is neither necessary or responsible for anything, which effectively proves his non-existence beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The vast, vast majority of scientists in the world are rather quick to point this out. Science can neither prove nor disprove Him.

Wrong. If God existed science most certainly could proves His existence because there would be (amongst other things) violations of the physical laws, which there aren’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
In fact, most scientists will insist that they cannot prove anything at all, they can at most provide models that seem to explain how things work or what will happen when certain factors are present. This is why the highest level of scientific certainity is a theory, rather than a proof.

No it’s not, a Law is a higher level then a theory. And a theory in science in way suggests something is not a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
Proofs fall into the realm of logic, not science, and proofs are based upon abstract ideas that may or may not even represent anything that really exists. Science does not claim to prove anything, leaving that to the realm of philosophy (wherein one finds the field of logic)!!!

Bravo, and your point with is what? Science most certainly does tell us what is true, what is false and what is immutable while always open to the possibility they we may be wrong IF new evidence presents itself. A system religion does not follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
God is, by definition, something outside of nature! You may not like this definition and say it doesn’t make sense but that is irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant? That it makes no sense may be irrelevant to you but here in the real world if something doesn’t make sense it is relevant. I could say, I’ll shoot you in the face with a shotgun but you wont be hurt because these bullets exist outside of nature. If you tell me that that doesn’t makes sense, well who cares it’s irrelevant, right? Right up to the point where I pull the trigger of course. And where’s your proof God exists outside of nature? Just saying he does is meaningless, if you assert that you better have some damn good evidence to back it up otherwise you may as well argue that God is an aardvark that lives in your rectum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
That is the definition of God.

Says who? And if it is you’ve shown how utterly absurd and how unlikely it is to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The reason they don’t like it is because they know that it really does put Him outside of the realm of science.

No it doesn’t. It puts it outside the realm of sanity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
In fact there are lots of things that atheists readily accept as true which science cannot attest to, such as consciousness. everything we know about neurological science tells us that consciousness should not be possible, and yet we are conscious. Or are we? Is there even such a thing as consciousness, or is that merely what the various biological actions in our brains cause us to believe. Even in speaking about belief I am referring to a part of consciousness, which we cannot even prove exists without proving belief exists which we cannot prove exists apart from consciousness and it is one giant repeating circle.

Oh boy oh boy, this person is talking about consciousness. Yikes, as this doesn’t pertain at all to the question of whether God exists or not I’ll simply say, tell this bloke or girl to go study nueroscience. Sufficed to say, consciousness is a product of our evolution, pretty well understood as well.


#9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
u explained why we can’t ask what created God perfectly - God is by definition uncreated. Or, to put it in an even better way, take whatever is not created - that is what we give the name God to. The reason that they object to this definition is because they don’t like it.
I object to this definition because it absolute gibberish. “God is by definition uncreated”. Do you just pull these definitions out of your ***? Where’s your proof of this? Again, you can’t just say “this is the definition of X, hey!” Let me just highlight what you wrote: take whatever is not created - that is what we give the name God to. So God is nothing? Pretty good going there mate. If God is nothing God doesn’t exist then. You pray to the expanse of nothing, huh? That I’m sorry to tell you makes you schizophrenic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
In fact, what was very amusing is how he said that this is illogical. It is COMPLETELY logical. Logically, it makes perfect and complete sense. All logic does is to take a series of premises, any premises you want, and determine what is true given that. It cannot itself disprove any one of the premises. For example, take the following argument:

  1. All men are immortal
  2. Socrates is a man
  3. Therefore, Socrates is immortal.

Logically, that is completely accurate. It is a perfectly valid argument. You might question, obviously, whether or not the first premise is true. That is fine - but logic cannot prove or disprove that premise - that’s the point.

I’m sorry, I’m going to need someone who speaks fluent gibberish to translate that for me because the very idea of you trying to discuss logic in such an illogical manner by basing you’re “proof” of logic on something that is whole illogical to begin with is…laughable, pathetic, absurd, ironic. Words can’t describe how silly that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
This is a perfectly valid argument:

  1. God is uncreated
  2. All Uncreated things do not require a creator
  3. Therefore, God did not require a creator

This argument is spotless.

LOL. Spotless logically speaking? No, not even close I’m afraid.

  1. God is uncreated - A completely illogical starting point undermining your whole argument of logic to begin with. It doesn’t matter if the steps you follow are logical in relation to the previous statement if what you’re talking about is completely illogical. All you have shown how do to is make logical steps from one premise to the other, not that your premise is logical. Big difference. Observe:

  2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is uncreated

  3. All Uncreated things do not require a creator
    3)Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not require a creator.

Does this mean The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? According to your “logic” it does, which as a result means God does not exists!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
These folks may disagree with premise 1, but they cannot prove or disprove it with logic. Therefore, for them to say that the idea that God is by definition uncreated is illogical shows that they either have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, or they are being, whether intentionally or not, dishonest

Ah yes, the sound of ringing irony! This is an example of what is so bad about religious moderates. It’s impossible to have any sort of rational dialouge with this sort of person when they simply have no grasp of what logic is and twist it and (and in this case, throw it out the window) to fit (for want of a much better word) with their invented definitions. There is absolutely no rationale or logic present in this post (or the other one this person wrote).


#10

The individual references a book called “How Science Shows that God does not Exist.” I realize that he is only referencing the book, not explicitly making the claim himself, but he appeals to the book and so in some way agrees with the idea. He also makes the claim more explicitly when he says “This really is God’s last refuge being overrun being scientific understanding and the last refuge of an argument for just why God might exist gone.” The entire point of everything he quoted is that science proves God does not exist, but all he can do is try to prove why God is not necessary, not that He doesn’t exist. Showing that something is improbable does not prove it doesn’t exist.

Most importantly, showing that something is unnecessary by no means shows it is improbable! Many unnecessary things exist, proving that innecesity does not indicate improbablilty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The vast, vast majority of scientists in the world are rather quick to point this out. Science can neither prove nor disprove Him.

Wrong. If God existed science most certainly could proves His existence because there would be (amongst other things) violations of the physical laws, which there aren’t.

First, he is wrong because the vast majority of scientists do point this out. Second, he is again making unfounded assumptions. He will not accept the definition of God as God being something outside of nature, and so his appeal here (and all of the rest of them) is to an argument that only applies to things that are within nature. Again, the main problem is that he is rejecting the definition of God, which I will address below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
In fact, most scientists will insist that they cannot prove anything at all, they can at most provide models that seem to explain how things work or what will happen when certain factors are present. This is why the highest level of scientific certainity is a theory, rather than a proof.

No it’s not, a Law is a higher level then a theory. And a theory in science in way suggests something is not a fact.

This person is mistaken. Laws are not of some higher level or authority in science; they apply to different things. Theories apply to broad systems, whereas laws apply to specific actions. A law is a more refined than a theory, but it is still nothing more than a well supported set of predictions. Few scientists in the world would claim that a scientific law is a proof of anything. He is also mistaken that a theory in science suggests that something is not a fact. Hardly! Scientists I know who are in support of the theory of evolution vehemently point out that just because it is called a theory, that is a suggestion it is not a fact. Laws are things which are so well established that it would be virtually impossible for them to be wrong, but nevertheless they are, along with theories, only predictive, not proofs.

This person is very misinformed about how science works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
That is the definition of God.

Says who? And if it is you’ve shown how utterly absurd and how unlikely it is to exist.

Says all the people that believe in the God of Abraham lol. If he wants to disprove the God of some other faith, he will have to see what they say God is. If this fellow makes a claim that I disagree with, I have to start with his definitions. If he says that gnorps are giant red tigers that live in in Sherwood forest, it does me no good whatsoever to call his definition absurd, I would actually have to try to show in some way why gnorps don’t exist. I may think his claim is outlandish, but it is nevertheless a claim. Saying a claim is ridiculous does not disprove the claim. If it did, then half of the facts we consider true today would have been disproven long ago, when they were called absurd. Additionally, it does me no good to prove that there are no regular tigers in Sherwood, because gnorps, by his definition, are not regular tigers.


#11

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The reason they don’t like it is because they know that it really does put Him outside of the realm of science.

No it doesn’t. It puts it outside the realm of sanity.

Again, this is merely an ad hominem attack against our definition. These are all accusations he is making. Theists are saying, we believe in God, here is what He is. He is simply replying, ‘that’s absurd,’ without giving any evidence or reason to support his case. Note that when I called his claims absurd at first, I provided lots of reasons why - reasons that addressed what he said specifically, and not my own opinions about it. When he made the claim that energy proves God doesn’t need to exist, I called it absurd, but then I said why - and I addressed his conception of what he was saying, not some conception of it that I felt was better. If he wants to give a different definition of God, that’s fine, but he will just be defining a new entity, not addressing the one we are already claiming exists.

Oh boy oh boy, this person is talking about consciousness. Yikes, as this doesn’t pertain at all to the question of whether God exists or not I’ll simply say, tell this bloke or girl to go study nueroscience. Sufficed to say, consciousness is a product of our evolution, pretty well understood as well.

As someone who has read some of the more modern neuroscience material, I will have to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
God is, by definition, something outside of nature! You may not like this definition and say it doesn’t make sense but that is irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant? That it makes no sense may be irrelevant to you but here in the real world if something doesn’t make sense it is relevant. I could say, I’ll shoot you in the face with a shotgun but you wont be hurt because these bullets exist outside of nature. If you tell me that that doesn’t makes sense, well who cares it’s irrelevant, right? Right up to the point where I pull the trigger of course. And where’s your proof God exists outside of nature? Just saying he does is meaningless, if you assert that you better have some damn good evidence to back it up otherwise you may as well argue that God is an aardvark that lives in your rectum.

Again, the problem here is simply that he disagrees with the definition, not that there is anything wrong with a definition. Saying that God exists outside of nature makes perfect sense. When I say it is irrelevant, I mean the fact that he does not agree with it is to the fact that science cannot address God. Just because he thinks it doesn’t make sense, that doesn’t detract from the fact that science cannot prove or disprove God. He is also confusing things. A definition is not something that is proven or disproven. A definition is something that explains what something is. I can say that a fish is a creature that lives in the sea; that is a definition. If he wants to disagree with the definition, that is fine. He can then provide reasons for why he thinks that a fish is something else. If the fellow wants to provide a different definition for God, he can do that all he wants, but it will not be what we worship when we worship God.

This is the real problem, here. We are saying we worship Something that exists outside of nature and is uncreated. He can, by science, never prove or disprove that that particular thing exists. His only recourse would be to logic, not science. If he disagreed with something I said about a fish, he could appeal to science to prove me wrong, because fish are within the realm of science. God is not - as are many things. Scientists will readily admit that there are plenty of things - things everyone agrees exist - that they cannot study with their instruments. The God we worship is, by definition, in this category, and so must be addressed as we define Him. This fellow can disprove all sorts of gods with his instruments, but they do not disprove our God, but something else. Essentially, he is setting up a straw man.

Now, he might say in response to this that this is not fair, he should not have to prove a definition we give, but that is incorrect. Any time a person tries to prove or disprove something, they must disprove the thing that is asserted by the other person, not their own conception of it. If I say I saw a yeti in the woods, the person has to deal with what I was talking about. Addressing something else will not touch my claim about the yeti. If he says he has a talking fish, I can prove all I want that fish do not have vocal cords, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the fish he is talking about, not my conception of what a fish is. In this case, he could take me to the fish and show me naturally. In our case, he has to address the issue from a philisophical point of view, not a natural one, becasue the ‘fish’ we are talking about is not in nature.


#12

As I have said above, a definition defines what must be proven or disproven. A definition cannot be gibberish just because a person disagrees with is. A definition simply states the object that is under question. You can just say, “this is my definition of X,” because that defines what the argument is about. This is why the first step in any argument is to agree on definitions. If I want to argue with someone about capitalism, we first have to agree on what capitalism is, or else the arguments one gives for it will not actually be about the same thing that the other person is giving against it. In the case of something like capitalism, we could settle on a dictionary definition or on the common definition. In some cases, such as if two people were to argue about the existence of fairys, it would be more important to settle on a definition first, because fairys are not understood by all people to be the same thing. All a definition is, is a phrase the explains theactual concept that is meant by a particular word. I think I have adequately addressed this above as well as here.

What it comes down to is, we are saying, “This is what we believe in - argue about that,” and he is saying, “That idea is absurd,” without actually providing any evidence.

I am going to address something very, very interesting about this after - something that all by itself should completely undermine his position. If you send him this, don’t send this paragraph.

I’m sorry,…

Just as this person does not understand science, it is extremely clear he does not understand logic. The argument I provided is valid. Given that the premises are true, it is impossible that the conclusion is not true. Logic professors and books all around the world do and have used ‘silly’ arguments like this to demonstrate how logic works. He seems to be equating things like ‘absurd’ with ‘illogical.’ I really can’t say much more other than to point him to take a course in logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
This is a perfectly valid argument:

  1. God is uncreated
  2. All Uncreated things do not require a creator
  3. Therefore, God did not require a creator

This argument is spotless.

LOL. Spotless logically speaking? …

I agree completely that the logic only shows God exists if the premises are true. He is disagreeing with the premises, but you cannot call a premise illogical. You can only call a premise true or false. If he wants to disprove God, he has to disprove that first premise, not the argument. The argument works fine.

I will fully admit that I cannot prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. However, this does not mean that God does not exist. If someone was really claiming the flying Spaghetti Monster was uncreated, I would have to prove that that was not true (which I believe I could).

[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
These folks may disagree with premise 1, but they cannot prove or disprove it with logic. Therefore, for them to say that the idea that God is by definition uncreated is illogical shows that they either have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, or they are being, whether intentionally or not, dishonest

Ah yes, the sound of ringing irony! This is an example of what is so bad about religious moderates. It’s impossible to have any sort of rational dialouge with this sort of person when they simply have no grasp of what logic is and twist it and (and in this case, throw it out the window) to fit (for want of a much better word) with their invented definitions. There is absolutely no rationale or logic present in this post (or the other one this person wrote).

As I have shown, and will quote from Logic textbooks if necessary to prove, it is he that does not have a grasp of logic.
[/quote]


#13

My friend, here is the biggest problem with your atheist friend. He says:

“I object to this definition because it absolute gibberish. “God is by definition uncreated”. Do you just pull these definitions out of your ***? Where’s your proof of this? Again, you can’t just say “this is the definition of X, hey!” Let me just highlight what you wrote: take whatever is not created - that is what we give the name God to. So God is nothing? Pretty good going there mate. If God is nothing God doesn’t exist then. You pray to the expanse of nothing, huh? That I’m sorry to tell you makes you schizophrenic.”

Here, he says that uncreated=nonexistant. I said that God is uncreated, and he says that because I said this, then by my definition, God doesn’t exist. However, this directly contradicts his entire argument, because he is in this saying that the only things that exist are those which are created. He is thus acknowledging that anything that exists needed to be created, which is our entire point.

But let’s take it a step further. In his original argument, he said of Victor J. Stenger’s argument,

Therefore you needed no energy whatsoever to create the matter that was necessary for the creation of the universe which beautifully gets rid of the argument that you needed a God (or anything) to create matter, to create the universe. This is explains where matter comes from, and scientifically proves God is not only not necessary or responsible for the creation of the universe, nothing is.

He later says,

We know for certain that the laws of physics did not come from any external source, and that the universe looks exactly the way you would expect it to if it came from nothing. The laws look exactly the way they look if there is no lawgiver.

He is, then, saying that the universe needed no creator - it simply always was - which is ***exactly ***what theists claim about God. If the definition of God is absurd, then so is the definition of the universe he is providing, because the two are the same: something that simply exists without any creator.

He is then admitting that something can and doesexist without a creator, he just wants to believe it is the universe (or the energy in the universe, or the matter, or something), and not God.


#14

thanks for the help so for! but what paragragh did you not want me to send? the one before r the one after?


#15

Oh for goodness sake. Look, you can pass this on to whoever is writing this shit. I have no interest in getting into a back-and-forth with someone who is arguing about things that have nothing to do with the central topic. This is what I wrote before, rational dialouge can only take you so far when talking to one of these religious types because a great gaping gulf of logic and rationale opens up within the minds of these types of people and they come up with these twisted, contorted ideas of what passes for rationality and thus effective nullifies any possibility of rational discussion.

There are two simple points which you still have not given any rebuttal too, or presented any reasonable argument to the contrary.

1- The Improbability of God’s existence.
2- The universe is exactly as you would expect it to be without a creator.
3- Not only is there absolutely no evidence for a creator God, all the evidence we have and all our understanding (which admittedly is nowhere near complete) tells us that there is no God.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue on a discussion of this sort so until you bring me back some evidence to back up what you’re claiming (that God exists), I’m exiting this part of the conversation. I expressed what I wanted to say in my earlier post, everything I said in there has stood up to closest scientific scrutiny so your attempts to disprove what I wrote are pointless, and I have no intention of repeating myself ad naueum or getting into a long back-and-forth with somebody like yourself for the simple reason that you’re blatantly unable to have a rational discussion so lets just leave it to the evidence to do the talking. Until you have any to present, so long.

i dont think he liked the reply


#16

Malachy, people have to be open to discussion and open to Grace before any words will do any good. Unfortunately, this is a case where God needs to work on this person before anything you, I, or anyone else does is going to work.

If you look at what he said in this latest reply, he has selected a few things of his which he thinks I have not responded to and made them out to be the main point of the discussion, while himself not having rebutted a single one of the points I made.

For example, he says I have not responded to the ‘fact’ that God is improbable. However, this is an assertion of his that requires evidence. he hasn’t provided any evidence for this. The only thing he has provided is an argument about the energy in the universe which he says proves that God is not necessary, but that does not have anything to do with whether or not He is probable or not. What’s more, I have rebutted this argument of his, and he has not said one peep about it.

He has said the universe is exactly as you expect it to be without a Creator, but again, this is an assertion that requires evidence. For this, he has provided no evidence whatsoever other than to make the assertion that he and Mr. Dawkins believe it to be true. I cannot rebut an argument he has not given.

He then says that all the evidence we have tells us there is not God, yet another assertion for which he has provided no evidence. He has listed off scientific theories such as evolution, but he has not made any argument as to why these are true. Plenty of people are more than happy to believe God and evolution are both true, so he needs to prove why the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

He also accuses me of being illogical and irrational, while I have been the only one actually bringing up logic and using it properly. He has made several statements that show he does not know how science works and that he does not know how logic works, and I have explained why, but instead of rebutting and explaining why I am incorrect, he instead just asserts that I am being illogical. The burden of proof is currently on him. he made several assertions at the beginning, many of which I have rebutted with arguments. He has not responded with a single piece of evidence or any argumentation, he has merely responded by calling everything I said absurd.

By any judgment, he has the burden here. I have presented arguments, he has failed to respond but has merely dubbed my arguments absurd. I have to say that many of his fellow atheists would be rather ashamed to have him as a representative for these reasons. He is basically doing all the things that most atheists accuse theists of doing - making assertions without evidence and calling other viewpoints ridiculous.

Most importantly, I ahve shown that his conception of the existence of the universe is the same as our conception of the existence of God. If our God cannot exist in the way we say, then neither can his universe. He has essentially shown that he believes in the same sorts of things we do about how something can exist, he just cannot bring himself to call it “God” and put himself under the possibility of having to be accountable to God.

Malachy, all we can do right now is pray for this person. Looking at his posts, it is obvious he is a very angry person, and a person who is so angry and aggressive, so confident in his words, because in reality he is struggling with the question of God. He doesn’t want to continue the discussion because he can’t respond to what has been said, and this bothers him, even if he can’t yet admit it to himself. He needs our prayers, and he may be a lot closer than you think. This doesn’t mean he is necessarily going to turn it around anytime soon, but in many ways he is very close.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Also, if you disagree with anything I have said in this post and think I really have not answered him or that the burden really is on me right now, please let me know and I will do my best to correct the problem.


#17

i think you are right in him being annoyed but he will come back! lol they always do.

i dont want to think im am burding u with this! i have bveen arguing different religious things with him for months and im afraid his knwoledge is a little better than mine! also doesnt help that everyone esle is on his side! lol

this board was a way of helping me argue better! you are saying that points that want to make only doing it a lot better than me!


#18

I don’t mind at all. I just don’t want you to think that I am ignoring him, as he claims, or not addressing what he says, as he claims. Please, if you think I haven’t adequately addressed what he said, or that I am wrong to say that right now I’ve given all the evidence and he needs to come back with some, let me know! I want to make sure you aren’t troubled by what he says, and that I really am giving enough of a rational and logical argument.


#19

i cant see any problems with your replys! dnt worry i will tell ya lol!! im more used to arguing irish politics and on catholic-protestent beliefs with friends and what ever!

but the following of dawkins book just bothered me! and then the whole athesim thing. i just think that a lot of religious people are more interested in arguing amoung themselves about beliefs and they fail to see atheism surrounding both of them trying to puish of the cliff! maybe im putting to much drama on the full thing! lol

so im very grateful of yor help! and anyone else who wants to join in and help! r agrue against even! and ill be calling again on it very shortly lol


#20

returd as i thought! lol i hink hes getting more and more fustrated and he is letting himself go!

Oh for goodness sake, you’re pissing me off now because either you’re not reading what I wrote or you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have wrote or you’re too stupid to understand what I wrote so one last time for clarity sake I shall respond to this topic. Luckily I can just copy and paste what I’ve already written so it wont be too much of a hassle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
first of all it seems to be that your are picking up on the points that werent part of the main discussion and making them out to be the main point! u may or may not meh!

That doesn’t mean anything. I was responding to responses from my origional post so how could I be picking up on points that weren’t part of the main discussion if those points weren’t brought up by someone else, ie, you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
i dont think your rebutting the points i hav made but ill address ur points.

You’ve barely made any points and the ones you have posted I have replied to and shown why they are ridiculous. Go back to page 3 and you’ll see multiple examples. Generally you’ve just spouted a bunch of gibberish about faith and god being outside of nature which I already addressed in my origional thread. Then you hear the argument that God was never created, that he exists outside of time. Putting aside the fact that this makes no sense at all, since time is a measure of things, if God exists outside of it (nature) he becomes 100% impotent and unable to do anything at all let alone create a universe or answer prayers or grant everlasting life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
you say that I have not responded to the ‘fact’ that God is improbable. However this is an assertion that requires evidence. You havnt provided any evidence for this btu im hoping that youy will.

I have, multiple times, including in my origional thread. Postulating God as the explanation for the creation of the universe explains nothing because you’re left with answering the even bigger question of what created God. God does not explain anything because it regress the problem, infinitely so. If you argue that something complicated like a Universe or life needs something even more complicated to bring it into existence then your argument holds that God’s existence can only be explained by something even more complicated then he bringing him into existence. And then that more complicated God who created your God would have to be explained by an even more complicated God and that one would have to be…and you see where I’m going. By using God as an explanation for creation you get this infinite regress of ever more complicated God’s creating lesser god’s for all time before time even began, which of course makes no sense whatsoever. The basic principle is human beings are far too complicated to have ever just happened into existence. We’re simply far too complicated to happen into existence through chance. Theists then turn to God as the explanation but you fail to realise that God would have to be vastly more improbable then we humans (infinitely more so in the case of the Judeo-Christian Islamic God) so if we couldn’t just happen into existence by chance (as we are far too improbable) then sure as hell God could never just happen into existence (be an uncreated entity) as he would be infinitely more improbable then we are. God is way, way, way too improbable to have ever happened into existence. The laws of probability simply don’t allow it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
The only thing as far as i can see is an argument about the energy in the universe which you say proves that God is not necessary,

I said the energy of the universe is ZERO which eliminates the argument that God was necessary for the creation of matter. That is simply a matter of fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
but that does not have anything to do with whether or not He is probable or not. even with that said we have rebutted this argument of and you have not said one peep about it

That shows he wasn’t responsible for the creation of the universe. The problem of improbability is what outlined above. Two different but equally devastating facts. Your christians posse’s group haven’t even come close to putting up a decent rebuttal. Besides, the entire scientific community has already examined these principles and they has survived so forgive but you lot aren’t going to disprove them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulainn
your second point then says that all the evidence we have tells us there is no God, but again this is another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

Yes I have. I have cited multiple scientific source and evidence that has survived rigorous scientific inquiry.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.